I’m not wishing to speak on behalf of Chronos, but I believe that was partly his point. Surely these people shouldn’t be gaining doctorates if they aren’t making any advances?
I think that’s wrong. EdD’s do indeed teach in universities, as do persons with PsyD’s, DSWs, MFAs, and more.
What is an Ed.Ser?
My skepticism is broader and aimed at many soft disciplines for which a doctoral dissertation (“original substantive research”) is indeed required. To wit, I’m wondering about the presumption of a “substantive” contribution. My dictionary defines “substantive” as “being of considerable importance or quantity.” Perhaps quantity is the operative word. That said, perhaps I shouldn’t be Shanghaiing my own thread, esp. in GQ.
Google shows that some EdD’s do indeed require a dissertation, which begs the question: What’s the difference between it and a PhD?
OK, I will clarify my definition by saying, in academia, a terminal degree is the highest degree that can be bestrowed in a field. Who knows how specific jobs define a terminal degree. For sure if you expect to work in academia, you won’t get very far trying to convince anyone that a masters in physics is a terminal degree. And even if someone is working outside of academia, I find it hard to believe that a masters in physics is viewed as a terminal degree. Try telling that to a PhD physicist working alongside non-PhD physicists.
Yes, the MFA is a terminal degree. I thought that the DFA is the actual terminal degree but the DFA is generally only an honorary, not an earned, degree. Thought of some more: M.Arch is the terminal degree in architecture, as are MSW and MLS in their respective fields. I’m sure that there are other examples of non-doctoral terminal degrees.
I need some advice…I’m looking into three different programs more specifically a Psy D, and Ed.D and I’m having a hard time choosing one over the other. I’m looking into a Psy. D Psychology program at Chicago School of Professional Psych, and a Psy.D Clinical program and Ed.D counseling program at Argosy University. Both the Ed.d and Psychology program are 3 years and the Clinical Psychology program is 4, but I’m wondering which one will provide me with better job security, give me an opportunity to do what I want (therapy/counsel), and give the best rewards. Any suggestions or recommendations??
Thanks.
If I were hiring you, I’d look at CSPP more favorably than Argosy. What exactly do you mean by “Psychology” vs. Clinical Psychology? Do these programs all require a master’s or not?
I think the Ed.S is an educational specialist degree, which is a little above a masters. The Ph.D and Ed.D ore doctoral degrees. I think of the specialist degree as a junior college doctorate. I don’t know of any Ph.Ds who think of an Ed.D as equivalent, and I don’t know any Ed.Ds who think they aren’t! Where I live a lot of public school teachers and administrators have their specialist degrees.
I’d have to hunt it up, but the Dept of Education and NSF consider Ed.D., S.J.D., etc to be equivalent to the Ph.D. They have a list of first-professional degrees such as JD, MD, DC, PsyD, etc. that they make very clear are not close to being a PhD level. I’m finishing up my Ed.D. in math ed and I’d put it toe to toe with many of the PhDs in education I see people getting in terms of rigor and research.
What is and what isn’t a “real” degree, I find, is oftentimes a function of the insecurity level of the person discussing the matter. For instance, I’ve heard many times that my PhD, which will (if I survive the process) technically be in business administration, with an emphasis in statistics. Now, lots of people (mostly in arts and sciences) have told me that PhDs in business aren’t “real” doctors because “business administration” isn’t a “real” academic area.
Yet, I’ve never heard anyone in the college of business disparage other academic degrees. I’m sure it happens, but I’ve not heard it.
If you wanted a real degree, why didn’t you get a DBA? 
I know one recently graduated PsyD who had to write a dissertation so this may not be true for all PsyD programs. (Granted, it was a phenomenological study.) She was, and is a clinician, though - I think you’re right about that part.
This seems backwards. My understanding is that an Ed.D. is basically a Ph.D. for educators. In other words, it’s specifically designed for people who will teach at a college.
And, incidentally, your basic premise is flawed. I’ve taught at three different colleges, and I don’t have a Ph.D. In fact, I never finished my BS degree, although I got a credential using “equivalent experience” ten years after leaving college. Perhaps you meant “at a university” rather than “at a college”?
ETA: Wikipedia seems to back me up on what an Ed.D. is about, but I haven’t researched it farther than that. My experience at academia is, shall we say, dated.
The way it was originally designed:
Ph.D. in education - geared to those that research how education/learning works.
Ed.D. (Doctor of Education) - a practicum degree with research. Assumes a masters in the education field. Made for K-12 teachers to do advance research into educational theory and conduct their own reseach to evaluate the effectiveness of their own practices e.g. is heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping more effective.
D.A. (Doctor of Arts) - a practicum degree with research. Assumes a masters in the discipline field. Made for post-secondary teachers it requires knowledge of your teaching field e.g a history professor has an MA in European History. This doctorate would be in your field (e.g. D.A. in History) combining doctoral level research in your field along with research into androgogy. Your dissertation is on teacheing your subject to adults.
Way it is today:
Ph.D.s are the only true academic doctors :rolleyes:
or
We are a research institution - instruction is secondary. We want professors trained in research and not teaching.
Of course, this causes many truly non-PhD programs to attach the PhD lable to it
That was pretty much the work my friend the Ed.D. did to get her degree. It wasn’t large-scale, the time studied was relatively short (two years), and it didn’t really break new ground. It was more like “show us you know how to design, implement and analyze a clinical study.”